DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: FIG. 6 recites 680 which is not described in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: various compounds and structures throughout the specification are blurry.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 5 includes blurry compounds. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Choi (US 2021/0355148 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 6-7, Choi teaches an organic light-emitting device having narrow FWHM and high luminescence efficiency by including an organometallic compound represented by Formula 1 (abstract; ¶ [0170]). Examples of such devices include the device of Example 13 which includes an anode, a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an emission layer including a host and Compound 40 as a dopant, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, and a cathode (¶ [0474]-[0478]; Table 4 on pg. 124). Compound 40 is reproduced below in comparison to the claimed Formula 1 (structure on pg. 69).
40:
PNG
media_image1.png
256
243
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1:
PNG
media_image2.png
327
396
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Compound 40 reads on the claimed Formula 1 wherein:
a1 is 1 and a2 is 0, and n is 2;
X1 and X2 are each CR3 and X3 is S;
Each of Y1 to Y4 is CR5;
Z1 and Z2 are each O;
R1 is a C3 alkylsilyl group and R2 is not required to be present; and
R3 of X1 is hydrogen, R3 of X2 is an unsubstituted C6 aromatic group, and each R5 is hydrogen.
Additionally, compound 40 reads on the claimed Formula 1b and Formula 2-3 (claims 2-3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 2021/0355148 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yaeger (US 2020/0361975 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Choi teaches Compound 40 as described above with respect to claim 1.
40:
PNG
media_image1.png
256
243
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Compound 40 fails to read on one of the claimed Formulas 2-7 to 2-12 as it does not comprise an aromatic group or heteroaromatic group in the location of the claimed A ring. However, Choi teaches in Formula 1, CY1 may be represented by Formula CY1-9 wherein X13 may be C(R13) and R13 may be a C1-C60 heteroaryl group (¶ [0007]-[0013]).
Yaeger teaches a compound for use as an emissive dopant in an OLED, wherein the compound comprises a first ligand LA of Formula 1 wherein at least one of RA and RB has the structure of Formula 2 or 3 (¶ [0006]-[0007] and [0075]). Such a compound allows for the ability to fine tune the properties of the final phosphorescent metal complexes to control the color of the emission, OLED efficiency, and lifetime (¶ [0006]). Examples of compounds having a first ligand LA of Formula 1 include Ir(La583-XIII)2(Lc17-I) (pg. 138).
1:
PNG
media_image3.png
158
84
media_image3.png
Greyscale
2:
PNG
media_image4.png
64
101
media_image4.png
Greyscale
3:
PNG
media_image5.png
58
124
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Ir(La583-XIII)2(Lc17-I):
PNG
media_image6.png
69
144
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute hydrogen with
PNG
media_image6.png
69
144
media_image6.png
Greyscale
in the location of the claimed A ring, as exemplified by Yaeger’s Ir(La583-XIII)2(Lc17-I), to arrive at a compound having a first ligand LA of Yaeger’s Formula 1, based on the teaching of Yaeger. The motivation for doing so would have been to fine tune the properties of the final phosphorescent metal complex to control the color of the emission, OLED efficiency, and lifetime, as taught by Yaeger.
The modified Compound 40 of Choi in view of Yaeger reads on Yaeger’s Formula 1 wherein: X1 to X4 are each C; two RA are substituents that join to form a ring, one RA is hydrogen, and one RA is represented by Formula 2; two RB are substituents that join to form a ring, one RB is hydrogen, and one RB is an alkyl substituent (see Yaeger, ¶ [0007]).
The modified Compound 40 reads on the claimed Formula 2-9.
Claims 8-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 2021/0355148 A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2015/0280159 A1).
Regarding claims 8-15, Choi teaches the device of Example 13 including Compound 40 as a dopant in the emission layer, described above with respect to claim 7.
Choi fails to teach the device includes multiple emitting parts. However, as shown in Table 4, Compound 40 emits at a maximum emission wavelength of 625 nm and thus emits red light (see pg. 124).
Kim teaches display device comprising a tandem type white organic light emitting diode having improved color reproduction range and emitting efficiency (¶ [0008]-[0011]). As shown in Fig. 1, the device includes sequentially a first electrode 10; a second electrode 20; a first emitting part 100 including a first emitting layer 150, which is formed of a blue-color first emitting layer and a red-color first emitting layer wherein the red dopant has a peak wavelength between 620 nm and 630 nm; a first charge generation layer 410; a second emitting part 200 including a second emitting layer 250 formed of a red-color second emitting layer and a green-color second emitting layer, wherein the red dopant has a peak wavelength between 620 nm and 630 nm; a second charge generating layer 420; and a third emitting part 300 including a third emitting layer 350 formed of a red-color third emitting layer and a blue-color third emitting layer, wherein the red dopant has a peak wavelength between 620 nm and 630 nm (¶ [0031]-[0043], [0048]-[0049], [0061], [0074], [0086], and [0100]).
Fig. 1:
PNG
media_image7.png
614
458
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the emission layer of Choi’s Device 13 including a host and Compound 40 as the red-color first emitting layer, the red-color second emitting layer, and the red-color third emitting layer in the tandem type white organic light emitting diode of Kim, based on the teachings of Choi and Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a device with improved color reproduction range and emitting efficiency, as taught by Kim, and provide an organic light-emitting device having narrow FWHM and high luminescence efficiency, as taught by Choi.
Per claims 8-11, the first emitting part 100 reads on the claimed second emitting part; the blue-color first emitting layer (which necessarily includes a blue dopant) reads on the second emitting material layer; the first charge generation layer 410 reads on the claimed first charge generation layer; the second emitting part 200 reads on the claimed first emitting part; the red-color second emitting layer reads on the claimed first emitting material layer; and the green-color second emitting layer (which necessarily includes a green dopant) reads on the claimed third emitting material layer.
Per claims 8-9 and 12-13, the first emitting part 100 reads on the claimed second emitting part; the blue-color first emitting layer reads on the claimed second emitting material layer; the first charge generation layer 410 reads on the claimed second charge generation layer; the second emitting part 200 reads on the claimed third emitting part; the green-color second emitting layer (which necessarily includes a green dopant) reads on the claimed third emitting material layer; the third emitting part 300 reads on the claimed first emitting part; and the red-color third emitting layer reads on the claimed first emitting material layer.
Per claims 8-9 and 14-15, the first emitting part 100 reads on the claimed second emitting part; the blue-color first emitting layer reads on the second emitting material layer; the first charge generation layer 410 reads on the claimed first charge generation layer; the second emitting part 200 reads on the claimed first emitting part; the red-color second emitting layer reads on the claimed first emitting material layer; and the green-color second emitting layer (which necessarily includes a green dopant) reads on the claimed fourth emitting material layer; the second charge generating layer 420 reads on the claimed second charge generation layer; the third emitting part 300 reads on the claimed third emitting part; and the blue-color third emitting layer (which necessarily includes a blue dopant) reads on the claimed third emitting material layer.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 2021/0355148 A1) in view of Kim (US 2015/0280159 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Cho (US 2017/0222183 A1).
Regarding claims 16-20, Choi in view of Kim teach the tandem type white organic light emitting diode comprising Compound 40, as described above with respect to claim 8.
Choi in view of Kim fail to teach an encapsulation film covering the device and fail to teach the device further comprises a substrate.
Cho teaches an organic electronic device including an encapsulation film, wherein the encapsulation film effectively prevents the penetration of moisture or oxygen from the outside into the organic electronic device (abstract). Cho teaches in Fig. 3 an organic electronic element 23 is formed on one surface of a substrate 21 and an encapsulation film 3 is formed on the other surface of the substrate (pg. 2 and ¶ [0063]). Fig. 3 further includes a moisture barrier layer 6 and cover substrate 22 (¶ [0063]).
Fig. 3:
PNG
media_image8.png
282
566
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the tandem type white organic light emitting diode on a substrate, and provide an encapsulation film, a moisture barrier layer, and cover substrate on the electronic device, as shown in Fig. 3, based on the teaching of Cho. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent the penetration of moisture or oxygen from the outside into device, as taught by Cho.
Per claims 17-18, the first emitting part 100 reads on the claimed second emitting part; the blue-color first emitting layer (which necessarily includes a blue dopant) reads on the second emitting material layer; the first charge generation layer 410 reads on the claimed first charge generation layer; the second emitting part 200 reads on the claimed first emitting part; the red-color second emitting layer reads on the claimed first emitting material layer; and the green-color second emitting layer (which necessarily includes a green dopant) reads on the claimed third emitting material layer.
Per claims 17 and 19, the first emitting part 100 reads on the claimed second emitting part; the blue-color first emitting layer reads on the claimed second emitting material layer; the first charge generation layer 410 reads on the claimed second charge generation layer; the second emitting part 200 reads on the claimed third emitting part; the green-color second emitting layer (which necessarily includes a green dopant) reads on the claimed third emitting material layer; the third emitting part 300 reads on the claimed first emitting part; and the red-color third emitting layer reads on the claimed first emitting material layer.
Per claims 17 and 20, the first emitting part 100 reads on the claimed second emitting part; the blue-color first emitting layer reads on the second emitting material layer; the first charge generation layer 410 reads on the claimed first charge generation layer; the second emitting part 200 reads on the claimed first emitting part; the red-color second emitting layer reads on the claimed first emitting material layer; and the green-color second emitting layer (which necessarily includes a green dopant) reads on the claimed fourth emitting material layer; the second charge generating layer 420 reads on the claimed second charge generation layer; the third emitting part 300 reads on the claimed third emitting part; and the blue-color third emitting layer (which necessarily includes a blue dopant) reads on the claimed third emitting material layer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 5, the prior art does not teach or suggest one of the claimed compounds wherein each compound requires a ligand comprising naphthalene, quinoline, or isoquinoline and an aza-benzothiophene or aza-benzofuran ring; wherein the naphthalene, quinoline, or isoquinoline is substituted with t-butyl or phenyl in the 5-position; and wherein the 2-position of the aza-benzothiophene or aza-benzofuran ring is substituted with hydrogen, methyl, isobutyl, or propyl, in combination with the remainder of claim 5.
Choi (US 2021/0355148 A1), cited in the rejection above, is considered the closest prior art of record. Choi teaches an organometallic compound represented by Formula 1 (abstract; ¶ [0170]). Wherein examples thereof include Compound 40 (abstract; structure on pg. 69). Compound 40 fails to read on a claimed compound as it comprises an aryl group in the 2-position of the aza-benzothiophene ring.
40:
PNG
media_image1.png
256
243
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1:
PNG
media_image9.png
212
276
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Choi teaches in Formula 1, CY1 is represented by one of Formulae CY1-1 to CY1-9 (¶ [0007]). Formulae CY1-4 to CY1-9 correspond to an aza-benzothiophene ring in the location of CY1 and none of these formulae allow for the 2-position of the aza-benzothiophene ring to be occupied by any group other than a C5-C30 carbocyclic group or a C1-C30 heterocyclic group (see definition of CY12 in ¶ [0010]). Accordingly, given that the compounds of claim 5 require hydrogen, methyl, isobutyl, or propyl in the 2-position of the aza-benzothiophene or aza-benzofuran ring, the compounds of claim 5 are not within the scope of Choi’s Formula 1.
Jeon (US 2020/0091441 A1) is considered relevant to the claimed invention. Jeon teaches an organometallic compound represented by Formula 1 wherein L1 is a ligand represented by Formula 2 or 3 (abstract; ¶ [0009]-[0016]). Examples of compounds represented by Formula 1 include compound 127 (pg. 27). Compound 127 fails to read on one of the claimed compounds as it does not include naphthalene, quinoline, or isoquinoline substituted with t-butyl or phenyl in the 5-position.
1: M(L1)n1(L2)n2 2:
PNG
media_image10.png
158
112
media_image10.png
Greyscale
3:
PNG
media_image11.png
155
128
media_image11.png
Greyscale
127:
PNG
media_image12.png
164
218
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Jeon teaches in Formula 1, Z1 and Z2 are each a C1-C60 alkyl group or a deuterium-containing C1-C60 alkyl group (¶ [0024]). Accordingly, given that the compounds of claim 5 require only one t-butyl or phenyl substituent on the naphthalene, quinoline, or isoquinoline ring, the compounds of claim 5 are not within the scope of Jeon’s Formula 1.
Thus there is no prior art, either alone or in combination, which teaches or renders obvious one of the claimed compounds wherein each compound requires a ligand comprising naphthalene, quinoline, or isoquinoline and an aza-benzothiophene or aza-benzofuran ring; wherein the naphthalene, quinoline, or isoquinoline is substituted with t-butyl or phenyl in the 5-position; and wherein the 2-position of the aza-benzothiophene or aza-benzofuran ring is substituted with hydrogen, methyl, isobutyl, or propyl, in combination with the remainder of claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2020/0227659 A1 recites compounds that read on the claimed Formula 1 (see at least the last two compounds on pg. 195).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAELYN R WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights